Incidence of acute compartment syndrome with routine use of regional anesthesia for patients with long bone fractures: a large single-center retrospective review from a level I trauma tertiary academic institution.

INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, using peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) in patients with long bone fractures has been limited due to concerns that it may interfere with the timely diagnosis of acute compartment syndrome (ACS). However, our large academic institution and level I trauma center have been using regional anesthesia routinely for pain management of patients with long bone fractures for more than a decade, with strict adherence to a comprehensive management protocol. The aim of this retrospective review is to present our experience with this practice. METHODS: Following Institutional Review Board approval, we performed a retrospective chart review of patients with long bone fractures and ACS over a 10-year period (2008-2018). RESULTS: 26 537 patients were included in the review. Approximately 20% of these patients required surgery, and 91.5% of surgically treated patients received regional anesthesia. The incidence of ACS in our cohort was 0.1% or 1.017 per 1000 patients with long bone fractures. CONCLUSION: Current recommendations on using PNBs in patients at risk for ACS have been mainly based on expert opinion and dated case reports. Due to the nature of the condition, prospective data are lacking. Our large observational dataset evaluated the risk of missing or delaying ACS diagnosis when PNBs were offered for trauma patients and demonstrated a relatively low incidence of ACS despite the routine use of PNBs under strictly protocolized conditions when patients were managed by a dedicated multidisciplinary care team.

Pro-Con Debate: Peripheral Nerve Blockade Should Be Provided Routinely in Extremity Trauma, Including in Patients At Risk for Acute Compartment Syndrome.

In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss the controversial debate of whether to provide peripheral nerve blockade (PNB) to patients at risk of acute extremity compartment syndrome (ACS). Traditionally, most practitioners adopt the conservative approach and withhold regional anesthetics for fear of masking an ACS (Con). Recent case reports and new scientific theory, however, demonstrate that modified PNB can be safe and advantageous in these patients (Pro). This article elucidates the arguments based on a better understanding of relevant pathophysiology, neural pathways, personnel and institutional limitations, and PNB adaptations in these patients.

Visceral versus somatic pain: an educational review of anatomy and clinical implications.

Somatic and visceral nociceptive signals travel via different pathways to reach the spinal cord. Additionally, signals regulating visceral blood flow and gastrointestinal tract (GIT) motility travel via efferent sympathetic nerves. To offer optimal pain relief and increase GIT motility and blood flow, we should interfere with all these pathways. These include the afferent nerves that travel with the sympathetic trunks, the somatic fibers that innervate the abdominal wall and part of the parietal peritoneum, and the sympathetic efferent fibers. All somatic and visceral afferent neural and sympathetic efferent pathways are effectively blocked by appropriately placed segmental thoracic epidural blocks (TEBs), whereas well-placed truncal fascial plane blocks evidently do not consistently block the afferent visceral neural pathways nor the sympathetic efferent nerves. It is generally accepted that it would be beneficial to counter the effects of the stress response on the GIT, therefore most enhanced recovery after surgery protocols involve TEB. The TEB failure rate, however, can be high, enticing practitioners to resort to truncal fascial plane blocks. In this educational article, we discuss the differences between visceral and somatic pain, their management and the clinical implications of these differences.

Incidental findings on cardiac computed tomography in incident hemodialysis patients: the predictors of arrhythmic and cardiovascular events in end-stage renal disease (PACE) study.

BACKGROUND: This is the first study that has examined non-cardiac incidental findings in research cardiac computed tomography (CT) of hemodialysis patients and their relationship with patient characteristics. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis in the Predictors of Arrhythmic and Cardiovascular Events in End-Stage Renal Disease (PACE) study, a prospective cohort study on incident hemodialysis patients. Non-cardiac structures in the cardiac CT scan were reviewed and evaluated. The type and frequencies of non-cardiac incidental CT findings were summarized. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were performed to analyze the associations between gender, older age, obesity, history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), smoking status, history of chronic pulmonary disease and history of cancer with presence of any incidental CT findings and, separately, pulmonary nodules. RESULTS: Among the 260 participants, a total of 229 non-cardiac incidental findings were observed in 145 participants (55.8% of all participants). Of these findings, pulmonary nodules were the most common incidental finding (24.2% of all findings), and 41.3% of them requiring further follow-up imaging per radiology recommendation. Vascular and gastrointestinal findings occurred in 11.8% and 15.3% of participants, respectively. Participants 65 years or older had a higher odds of any incidental findings (Odds Ratio (OR) =2.55; 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) 1.30, 4.99) and pulmonary nodules (OR=4.80; 95% CI 2.51, 9.18). Prior history of CVD was independently and significantly associated with any incidental findings (OR=2.00; 95% CI 1.19, 3.40); but not with the presence of pulmonary nodules. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that the prevalence of incidental findings by cardiac CT scanning is extremely high among patients on hemodialysis. Further investigations to follow-up on the high occurrence of incidental findings during our research study and potentially clinical studies raises important practical, ethical and medico-legal issues that need to be carefully considered in research projects using imaging studies.